By your own words, it would be a lot better than the Al-Khalid. Shell, reload, overall armor profile
I’ve never compared the protection value of the Al-Khalid-I to the T-80UD/BE, I’ve only used it as a comparison. Both vehicles would perform very similarly with pros and cons. Both would have similar penetration, Naiza possibly penetrating more or less, better reload for the T-80UD/BE but worse turret traverse and gun elevation and worse overall mobility for the T-80UD/BE.
Naiza apparently has same length as other APFSDS rounds used by Pakistan. We can use values from those rounds.
The values of the Naiza APFSDS is available publicly here, have a look and tell me what you think then.
I dont think this is Naiza. It says tungsten core penetrator, Naiza has DU
In order to create a lineup at a certain BR, you actually need to start adding vehicles there
Russia doesn’t have a single 10.7 vehicle other than the T-80B and Tunguska, America doesn’t have a single 11.0 vehicle and nor does Italy excluding the KF41, why must we force vehicles in BRs in which they don’t naturally fit in to make artificial lineups?
It would be best to introduce changes to make the T-80UD/BE unique whether that’s just one of all of these suggestions and ideas, sub tech trees can be used to fill in gaps like how they’ve always been used for, we don’t need a one of event vehicle as a filler.
The T-80UD/BE is quite literally the only 10.7 vehicle for China ground as well
That’s weird, that was the website linked to the bug report for the Naiza, I’ll look into it for you give me a minute.
In order to create new lineups ?
So what ?
One vehicle must always be the first one.
But I guess you’re allergic to Gaijin trying to make new lineups.
You’re right, I couldn’t actually find much information on it besides every source stating it has a penetration of 550mm at 2000 meters, it was also made compatible specifically with the T-80UD in mind and obviously was never mass produced.
I sent the link connected to the Naiza bug report with the assumption it would be there but I was wrong, my apology.
Here is a image of the alleged Naiza APFSDS at the very least, take what you want.
But I guess you’re allergic to Gaijin trying to make new lineups
You do realise that 3BM42 wouldn’t be used by Pakistani T-80UD/BEs in service as it wouldn’t meet the criteria for Pakistani service? The T-80UD/BE we’ve got in-game is almost entirely ahistorical, you’d prefer to make a vehicle ahistorical to force it into a BR bracket which it realistically shouldn’t be sitting at.
It’s like stripping the T-90M of its 3BM60 and moving it down to 11.3 with HEATFS only and using the excuse “oh but it needs to fill in lineups”. You’re just being entirely irrational, changes to correct the error in-game will cause inflation of BR anyways.
In order to create new lineups
Ah yes, the singular vehicle lineup which China should be the only nation to suffer of this.
The key difference here is that China already has 3 (or 4 if you count the premium) 11.0 MBTs. It doesn’t need any more.
You’re somehow incapable of realizing China could get more 10.7 vehicles in the future.
Just how France got 10.7 Leopard and is bound to get more vehicles at that BR.
You’re somehow incapable of realizing China could get more 10.7 vehicles in the future
Let me repeat myself again, the T-80UD/BE is almost entirely ahistorical and adjustment of this would inevitable mean a increase of BR, even if you want it to be 10.7 it still realistically can’t if corrected in-game. Coping through and through won’t change the fact that the T-80UD/BE is as historical as the F-16AJ in-game minus the actual raw model of the vehicle.
3BM42 never was really used on T-80UD/BEs, it should have a domestic tank gun, it should possibly have a improved engine/transmission and should have a welded turret, all of this isn’t 10.7 material or do you have anything to say otherwise?
That looks fabulous, I saw that image whilst searching about the Naiza APFSDS but it was too low quality for me to decipher it - the gold like material make it look sick.
Definitely a short rod however or from the looks of it at the very least
So you want yet another 12.0 Chinese MBT ?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1597960075792240640
There’s also the sejjel tungsten apfsds. It pens 620mm armor at 0°.
Yeah I’ve heard of it before, it was the APFSDS which was chosen for mass production over the Naiza APFSDS, the performance translation in-game for both munition if anyone’s guess however.
The video also seems to be made by Pakistan Ordinance Factories, the department which is responsible for munition development and production. Maybe we could bug report this and get it in-game for the Al-Khalid-I or the T-80UD/BE (that’s if the Naiza doesn’t get added for the 80UD of course).
Nice find
Even if modified with all the recommendations here, this car will not be upgraded to 12.0. Because these changes have at best turned the car into a better-protected, but more sluggish AI-Khalid. That is, up to 11.0. Because the protection of the T-80UD is only 500-550KE, which is too weak.
I’ll repeat myself, you should start by separating which modifications would affect the BE and which ones would affect the DU-1.
Especially since I heavily doubt Gaijin is going to model the new turret, and they’ll probably just rename it to the DU-1.
Once again I suggest to make a report about the engine and the transmission, would also be very interesting to know if the engine and gearbox were also swapped on the DU-1.
I also want to underline how the ammunition nowadays is used as a balancing tool(I don’t agree with it but here we are), therefore they don’t really care if it was used inservice, they just ask themselves if the vehicle can shoot it.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing a DU-1 with Naiza at 10.7 or with Naiza, modified engine and gearbox at 11.0
Especially since I heavily doubt Gaijin is going to model the new turret, and they’ll probably just rename it to the DU-1
Yeah, a report to redesignate the T-80UD/BE to the T-80UD/DU-1 was accepted, I only mentioned the welded turret to point out the inaccuracies of the T-80UD/BE model in-game, it would be best to keep it as the T-80UD/DU-1.
What’s wrong however is the selection of munition, Pakistan likes to produce their own type of munition to promote self resilience and to avoid dependency on other nations militarily, Pakistani T-80UDs would almost never use 3BM42 but the Sejjeel or other domestically produced Chinese munition.
therefore they don’t really care if it was used inservice, they just ask themselves if the vehicle can shoot it
True and there is nothing stopping them from keeping 3BM42 on the vehicle but a domestic kinetic penetrator like Naiza or Sejjeel would make the T-80UD/BE (now the T-80UD/DU-1) more unique.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing a DU-1 with Naiza at 10.7 or with Naiza, modified engine and gearbox at 11.0
I honestly believe giving the T-80UD/DU-1 the Naiza with engine/transmission modification would be the best possible thing, the vehicle would become more distinct from the base T-80UD and would fit nicely in 11.0 alongside other vehicles.
The current performance of the vehicle is heavily hindered by the fact that there are no other 10.7 ground vehicle it could lineup with
nam u want better round and better engine wiht better reverse speed? not problem put in 11.7 br u understand leopard 2 have 400mm pen and u want 3bm60 in 10.7 br form a t80 u this have fk good armor in this br… wach the leopard front everyvere penetrate 300mm protection and u want 580 pen…+ why no ad for leopad2 A4 the dm 33 because used it… same for 2PL dm 53 .